Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARAMESWARAN NAIR M. versus KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PARAMESWARAN NAIR M. v. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT - WP(C) No. 27461 of 2006(T) [2006] RD-KL 1274 (18 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27461 of 2006(T)

1. PARAMESWARAN NAIR. M.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SIDCO R.M.DIVISION

For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :18/10/2006

O R D E R

K.K. DENESAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.27461 OF 2006 T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 18th October, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Heard Advocate O.D. Sivadas, counsel for the petitioner and Advocate M.A. Manhu for the respondents.

2. This Court had occasion to consider similar grievances in writ petitions filed by the former employees of the respondents. Those cases were disposed of directing the respondents to pay the amount legitimately due to the retired employees, within a time limit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the delay is on account of the financial crunch suffered by the Corporation.

2. Heard both sides. The retired employees shall be paid all amounts legitimately due to them within a reasonable time even if the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the Corporation is going through a period of financial stringency is the true state of affairs. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the amounts legitimately due to him towards gratuity, leave surrender salary, pay revision arrears, D.A. arrears and other dues, WPC No.27461/06 -2- if any, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may produce a copy of the judgment before the respondents for due compliance.

3. The petitioner has prayed for interest for the delayed payment. I do not think that this is a case where the respondents can be directed to pay interest in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the delay in disbursing the amount is not due to any deliberate inaction or culpable lethargy on the part of the respondents, but only on account of financial stringency and for reasons beyond the control of the respondents. Hence, that prayer is declined. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.K. DENESAN

JUDGE

jan/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.